Standing Committee A

[Miss Anne Begg in the Chair]

Traffic Management Bill

Clause 69 - Contraventions subject to civil enforcement

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 136, in 
page 41, leave out line 23.—[Mr. Chope.]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Anne Begg: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments:
 No. 137, in 
page 41, leave out line 24.
 No. 138, in 
page 41, leave out line 25.
 No. 151, in 
page 41, line 31, at end insert— 
 '(4A) Regulations under this part of the Act may not extend provision in relation to different descriptions of contraventions to include such contraventions as are likely to cause or contribute to a road traffic accident.'.
 No. 139, in 
schedule 7, page 71, leave out lines 8 to 22.
 No. 140, in 
schedule 7, page 71, leave out lines 23 to 29.
 No. 141, in 
schedule 7, page 71, leave out from line 30 to end of line 25 on page 73.

Paul Marsden: The clause identifies four categories of road traffic contraventions that are to be subjected to civil enforcement. The four that are listed do not seem to include cycling. There is a brief mention in schedule 7, which we will possibly discuss in more detail later. Paragraphs 3(2)(g) and 4(2)(h) both refer to section 21 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 in relation to cycle tracks.
 The CTC, the national cyclists' organisation, wants to know whether the definition of cycle tracks includes things such as cycle lanes and cyclists' advance stop-line facilities. I am sure that the Committee knows that they are the coloured bits on the road in front of traffic lights. I want to see proper protection for all cyclists, in the same way that we offer protection to other road users. Sometimes cyclists seem to be the Cinderella users of the public transport network. They appear to come bottom of the pile for investment. If we are trying to reduce traffic congestion, cyclists are incredibly environmentally friendly. The more cyclists we have, the greater will be the reduction in both congestion and pollution.

Greg Knight: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a duty on all cyclists to obey the law and that where cyclists start riding on footpaths without due care and attention, they should be prosecuted just the same as a motorist is?

Paul Marsden: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Two or three weeks ago I was out with the Shrewsbury police on an evening patrol. I was delighted when they stopped some youngsters who were riding on the pavement. That needs to be picked up. It presents many dangers to pedestrians. Cyclists need to be responsible, just like all other road users. As I said, if we want to reduce congestion we need to get as many people as possible walking and cycling. With the fragmented cycling network in most towns and cities it is a real problem. Cyclists and pedestrians face real dangers and they need protection. Why is a cycling contravention not included in the clause? Surely there can be greater definition of what cycle tracks mean. I hope that the Minister can help.

Hugh Bayley: I apologise to you, Miss Begg, to the Minister and to members of the Committee that I will have to leave early to attend my daughter's school parents evening. I sincerely hope that this will be a short debate and that I will be here long enough to hear the Minister's response. I find myself in the deeply embarrassing position of having to agree with what the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) said about cyclists. I fully support civil enforcement of both parking and moving traffic offences in bus lanes and pedestrian areas. It will mean that those areas will be used as intended. I am sorry that the Conservative party seeks to delete civil enforcement from the Bill. There will be less rigorous enforcement if the arrangements are not changed.
 It is a good thing that there will be enforcement of both parking and moving traffic offences in bus lanes and pedestrian areas. Enforcement is less clear in relation to cycle lanes, cycle gaps and other on-road provision for cyclists. Subsection (2)(d) refers to moving traffic contraventions and they are listed in part 4 of schedule 7. Why does not the Minister also include in the Bill the civil enforcement of parking offences in cycle lanes and other cyclists' areas of roads? As someone who cycles quite a bit, I believe that it is dangerous when someone parks in a cycle lane to the side of the road, because cyclists are forced to ride out in traffic that may be travelling at a considerable speed. It impedes the traffic, leading to congestion, and deters cyclists from cycling in busy areas. If they, like me, are fortunate enough to have a car as well as bicycle, many will use the car instead. I would like to hear the Minister's response to the idea of broadening the scope of the Bill to deal with parking in cycle lanes. 
 On moving traffic contraventions, the Minister has kindly provided us with a multicoloured list of traffic signals that are covered by part 4 of schedule 7. In my experience, it is the first time that we have had a colour document in a Standing Committee, and I congratulate the Minister on an impressive innovation.

Anne Begg: Order. I wonder whether the use of colour is in order in such matters, but in this case we will allow it.

Hugh Bayley: I stand corrected. Miss Begg. I will refer to the document as a chromographic list.
 The list includes sign No. 953, which designates a route 
''for use by buses and pedal cycles only''
 but does not include the sign for a route for use by cycles only. I ask the Minister whether the omission is deliberate and whether it could be put right. I do not believe that the criminal law enforcement authorities—the police—have the time or should properly be using it to enforce moving or parking offences in cycle lanes. If the enforcement were civil, there would be more rigorous enforcement of infringements. That would be good for cyclists and the free flow of traffic, because more people would cycle and fewer cyclists would stray out into fast-moving traffic.

David Wilshire: I shall speak about part 4 of schedule 7 and the splendid little aide-mémoire that the Minister gave us.
 I raise my first point because I started life as a printer. I draw the Minister's attention to the references to ''Motor vehicles prohibited'', which have a diagram reference of 619, and 
''Motor vehicles except solo motor cycles prohibited'',
 which have a diagram reference of 619.1. I was brought up as a printer to understand that there was a significance in colours being different. One sign has a pale red circle, which I do not recognise, and if the diagrams are being presented as definitive parts of legislation, and will be printed in colour, that colour should be correct. It strikes me that it is not. 
 My more substantial point refers to ''Box junction markings'', which has a diagram reference of 1043, 1044. The point was made in an earlier debate about using cameras to prove that someone is in a box junction. That is correct up to a point, but brings us back to the issue of reasonable excuse, which we discussed this morning so I will not repeat it. In essence, the issue is similar to one in which I was involved about variable speed limits on the M25. I dealt with the part of the M25 that was in my constituency. Drivers were passing under a gantry where the sign showed that the variable speed limit was 50 mph, but when they came out the other side and activated the cameras, the speed limit had changed to 40 mph. Technically, they were therefore speeding without having known that the speed limit had changed. It took some ingenuity on behalf of the then Government to find a way round the problem, but a solution was found. 
 The point made this morning about box junctions is that a photograph of somebody in one does not necessarily prove that the driver was at fault. There could have been a sensible space ahead when they moved into the box junction, but somebody or something could have conspired to ensure that the space was then blocked before they got out the other side. A single photograph could not demonstrate that. I am sure that the Minister would not want fixed 
 penalties, prosecutions or anything else in cases in which the only evidence was a single photograph that proved that what appeared at that moment to be an offence was being committed.

David Jamieson: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Committee Room this morning when I said that the difference is that speed cameras take a pair of fixed pictures, whereas this would be a moving camera image.

David Wilshire: I am grateful for that. I should have said at the outset that when the Committee was discussing this morning when we might sit or not sit and when you might catch your aeroplane this evening, Miss Begg, I was not in the Room, so if that were covered, I apologise. I am grateful for that assurance: otherwise, there is a genuine issue there, like the issue of variable speed cameras.

John Mann: I have a question about paragraph 3(2)(d) of schedule 7, using reference 619 as an example. Can I clarify that this could be used with a single fixed camera as a way of curtailing rat-running in an area?

David Jamieson: It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair this afternoon, Miss Begg. Amendments Nos. 136 to 141 would take bus lane, lorry ban and moving traffic contraventions out of the scope of civil enforcement. Those powers all exist in previous Acts of Parliament: in the London Local Authorities Act 1996, the Transport Act 2000 and the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. These amendments would not delete those powers, but would preserve a situation in which certain powers were available to authorities in London but not elsewhere, despite the fact that authorities throughout the country face many of the same problems in managing road and street networks.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) tabled amendment No. 151, which would prevent a traffic contravention that would be 
''likely to cause or contribute to''
 a road crash from being subject to civil enforcement. He would agree with me that failure to comply with almost any traffic regulation has the potential to cause a crash or infringe road safety. If the intention of the amendment is that such offences be effectively enforced, I believe it is somewhat misguided. The provisions of the Bill are set against a background, of which he is probably aware, of police forces focusing more sharply on tackling other street crimes. That means that they are focusing less on minor traffic offences. However, our aim is to promote road safety and reduce disruption, so it is important that the provisions are effectively enforced. I know that hon. Members have had time to examine the signs with which we wish to improve enforcement, and I am glad that the full technicolour diagrams assisted the Committee, although we shall rap the printers' knuckles for some of them being redder than others—a bit like Labour Members—and we shall get that sorted for future production.

Brian White: The explanatory notes read:
''Contraventions which would lead to licence endorsement may not be added to the list of moving traffic contraventions.''
 Unless I have missed it, that does not appear in the Bill. If the Minister can tell me that I have missed it, I shall happily shut up and sit down. My concern that the statement in the explanatory notes was not fully translated into the Bill gave rise to my amendment.

David Jamieson: I can assure my hon. Friend that it is in the Bill: he should refer to page 73. I am glad for some assistance on that. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) raised the issue of5 police enforcing various measures. The Metropolitan police had to use the box junction enforcement in 2003 on 169 occasions. Transport for London, in a pilot monitoring scheme in preparation for the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, observed 33 contraventions at four sites in only six hours, which shows that there are many such contraventions. The police are somewhat pressed when it comes to enforcement, which reinforces the case for civil enforcement officers to take some of the load off the police.
 The Bill would allow the police and civil enforcement officers to enforce moving offences. That has been decided after consultation on the regulations that were considered the most appropriate. At present, in London if a local authority applies for an order, the police would not be able to enforce it, but regulations under the Bill would allow that to happen. The police or the civil enforcement officers could enforce the provisions outside London. A person could not be fined by both for the same offences, but either could issue a fixed penalty notice for similar, non-endorsable offences listed in paragraph 10 of schedule 7.

Christopher Chope: Was not the Minister saying in response to the debate on clause 68 that he was against a dual system running at the same time where a person could suffer a penalty enforced by the police or by a civil enforcement officer?

David Jamieson: If I appeared to say that, it was not what I intended and the record will show that I did not say it. I said that people should not be able to be fined for the same offence by both. They should not be able to receive a fixed penalty and a penalty from the civil enforcement officer. It must be one or the other. Equally, one or the other in most cases would be able to impose a fine where that is appropriate.
 The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) spoke about bus lanes—he is not in his place but I am sure he will read the Hansard report of the debate—and that is a matter entirely for local authorities. They will set out who could use the bus lanes and at what times. The right hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of shared car use. Hon. Members expressed interest in it and a pilot is being conducted in Leeds, enforced by the police, which takes up a lot of their manpower. To spread such a scheme throughout the rest of the country would be difficult and it would be hard to enforce by using cameras. I am 
 told that one lady with a baby strapped in the back of her car was stopped three times because neither the camera nor a police officer at the side of the road could easily see the situation. 
 In Committee and outside it, my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) has rightly raised cycling matters, which were also mentioned by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham. The mandatory cycle lanes that are bounded by a solid white line, indicated by the cycle lane sign and backed by a traffic regulation order under sections 1, 6 or 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, are enforceable, but I understand that those with the broken line are not. Parking in a mandatory cycle lane is also open to civil enforcement under the Bill; its course is an offence under sections 5, 8 or 11 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The hon. Gentleman will find the information that he wants in schedule 7, paragraphs 3(2)(b) and 4(2)(b). The offence of parking on a cycle track is also subject to civil enforcement under the Bill, in schedule 7, paragraphs 3(2)(g) and 3(2)(h). In the case of the hon. Gentleman's authority, these will be enforceable offences.

Paul Marsden: I remind the Minister that I asked a specific question: what is the definition of cycle tracks in part 1, schedule 7 paragraph 3(2)(g) and 4(2)(h)? Does it include cycle lanes and the advance stop line facilities?

David Jamieson: The cycle track is separate and has a different definition. It will usually be a designated area for cycling, although it may include pedestrians, whereas a cycle lane usually runs in association with the highway. That was what I was just explaining in response to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for City of York. If the hon. Gentleman wants a further legalistic definition, we can provide him with that for a little light bedside reading.

Christopher Chope: Will the Minister confirm that the offence of cycling the wrong way along a one-way street would be covered by the provision? Otherwise, there would seem to be a certain inequity. I speak as someone with an interest in that issue—my wife was mown down by a cyclist travelling the wrong way along a one-way street. I hope that the Minister can confirm that there will be a level playing field in that respect.

David Jamieson: Yes. There is some understandable annoyance in relation to cyclists. It seems to be a particular problem in London, where some cyclists—a minority—seem to think that the usual traffic laws do not apply to them and will, for instance, go through red lights. I have seen some of my colleagues nearly mown down on Bridge street, crossing to Parliament street, by cyclists charging through. Road traffic laws apply to cyclists as they do to everyone else, and I understand that the provisions of the clause would be enforceable in that respect.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for saying that, but how can there be enforcement? As I understand it, the schedule that we will discuss later says that a cycle cannot be stopped.

David Jamieson: In cases in which cyclists could not be stopped, the offences would have to be taken up by
 a police officer. That is an important issue, and I shall look into the minute detail, rather than hurrying through an answer now. More detail would help the Committee in its deliberations. A police officer would be able to stop someone, but the civil enforcement officer might not be able to do so.

John Redwood: On that point, we would all like to see cyclists behaving more safely on the roads. The other evening, when I was travelling in an urban area, I counted 23 cyclists, of whom only six had proper red lights that shone permanently on the back of the bike. Most had no lights at all; some had strobe lights or lights that went out when the cyclists were stationary. Can that also be sorted out by penalty offences? It would be in the interests of cyclists to display lights at night to give motorists more of a chance of seeing them.

David Jamieson: The right hon. Gentleman is right. Bicycles should be lit properly, not only in the interests of other people on the road, but in the interests of the person sitting on the bicycle. Some cyclists think that the fact that they can see is sufficient, but it is important, because they are vulnerable in traffic, that they are also seen. It is probably more important than when one is in a motor vehicle.
 Such offences are not covered by the clause, but they are important in the enforcement of general safety on the road. Having said that, I hope that the Committee will resist the amendments.

Christopher Chope: I am sorry that the adjournment over lunch has resulted in the Minister losing sight of one of the points that was made by the Metropolitan police. When they were first consulted on the subject, they took the view that they would be happy with civil enforcement, but then realised that their own traffic warden service and community support officers could be used to enforce moving-traffic offences. The Metropolitan police, their traffic wardens and their support officers should be given the first chance of ensuring that such offences can be enforced.
 The Metropolitan police said in their letter that because there is no proposal to change the Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1970, their traffic wardens would be in an inferior position to civil enforcement officers employed by the local authority in relation to enforcement. Do the Government really intend that?

David Jamieson: I thought that I had made this clear, but let me make it even clearer. Under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, boroughs can pass a resolution in their authorities that enables them to enforce the particular listed offences. That relates to matters such as box junctions, right turns, one-way streets and so on. However, the police would then not have the powers to enforce those offences. I was saying that the Bill allows regulations to be made for dual enforcement that applies in and outside London. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman and the Metropolitan police, in response to the document with which they provided us.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful for that explanation. I move on to one other issue that is still causing me concern, which is reasonableness. We referred to it in an earlier debate. As I understand the annual report of the parking adjudication service, the service has relied heavily on the guidance set out by the Government on decriminalised parking enforcement as a reason for being able to decide that if cases are brought unreasonably and there are extenuating circumstances, local authorities should take account of those circumstances, although, according to the letter of the law, they are not required so to do. The adjudication service relies on Government guidance in order to introduce some common sense into that regime.
 I am not aware of the Minister having issued, or being prepared to issue, guidance on civil enforcement of the other offences in the schedule. I should be grateful if he would indicate what will happen on that. Otherwise, I can see that there will be an easier regime for local authorities in respect of parking, and a different one for moving traffic offences.

David Jamieson: That is a reasonable point. We want these offences to be imposed reasonably, because what matters is not only the imposition of the offence, but whether that achieves the objective, which is a better flow of traffic. This is not about fining people or imposing offences, but about getting traffic moving. We shall ensure that such matters are set out clearly in the guidance on the way in which civil enforcement officers should work.

Christopher Chope: The Minister refers to guidance. For clarification, perhaps he could tell us which part of the Bill sets up that guidance or tell us the time scale for issuing it and under which powers it will be issued. I should be grateful if he would answer that point at some stage.

David Jamieson: I will ensure that the answer is provided to the hon. Gentleman.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the Minister. There is still much unease outside the House of Commons about the civil enforcement of moving traffic offences. There has been limited use of that in London, and the Bill proposes that it should be extended throughout the country. Of all the amendments to clause 69, I shall press to a vote amendment No. 138, which would remove the permission for moving traffic contraventions to be subject to civil enforcement. However, I shall not press to a vote amendment No. 136. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 138, in 
page 41, leave out line 25.—[Mr. Chope.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 11.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Clause 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7 - Road traffic contraventions

Question proposed, That this schedule be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.

Christopher Chope: I want to ask the Minister about the most contentious provisions in the schedule, which are those relating to the box junction markings. We have been given a splendid photograph of a box junction marking, but most motorists would regard it as unrealistic. Many box junctions are only partially marked, as the paint has been removed either in whole or in part. It is often impossible to know whether one is on a box junction until one is there. What will happen when box junction markings are not clear or when the weight of traffic makes it impossible to see the box junction in advance? The problem is that, although police officers can use their discretion, cameras cannot.
 I am grateful to the Minister for making it clear in the previous debate that it will be impossible under paragraph 10 to introduce any offence that involves obligatory endorsement. That includes an offence of parking within the area of a pedestrian crossing, and that reassurance was welcome. What other traffic signs does the Minister think could be added in future under the powers in paragraph 10?

Andrew Miller: If the hon. Gentleman has not done it, he would benefit from doing the Institute of Advanced Motorists test. Many of the issues are covered in it.

Christopher Chope: I passed my Institute of Advanced Motorists test in 1991 and have maintained my membership since then. I will not make comparisons between the hon. Gentleman and me.

Andrew Miller: I accept that, and say, ''Good for him.'' Other people should do the test. However, if the hon. Gentleman thinks back to when he was taking the test, he will remember that it covers many issues, including keeping proper distance from the car in front, and it helps drivers to see what is happening in front of them.
 As with all junctions, if people treat box junctions properly, they should not get trapped in them.
 I wish to reflect on our earlier discussion and the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) that we debated under amendment No. 196. My judgment is that his concerns can be dealt with under schedule 7. By amending part 4 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, we can decriminalise the offences that he described in a designated bay in an off-road car park. Section 52(1) of that Act deals with motorists committing fraud by altering tickets and so on, and we would not want to decriminalise that. Will the Minister consider the possibility of tabling an amendment to schedule 7 or an additional new clause to meet the concerns of my hon. Friend?

John Mann: I do not seek to repeat anything that my hon. Friend said. Suffice it to say that if we can reduce the work load in magistrates courts, the entire criminal justice system, as well as the traffic system, will benefit. I am sure that this pro-motorist Minister, in a pro-motorist Government, will want to continue his brave record of demonstrating how pro-motorist he is in term of fairness and equity. We look forward to that with anticipation.
 I want to raise the issue of rat runs, and I will phrase my previous question more helpfully. One of the traffic signs not included in the list in schedule 7 is the access only sign. Rat runs are a major problem in our road system; across Nottinghamshire, they are a severe problem. I strongly share the county council's view that an access only sign could be used in conjunction with a camera on certain rat runs—in the worst-affected parts of Nottingham, 200 people an hour use rat runs to pass through a residential area. That could give local authorities a new and imaginative power to control rat runs. If such a system were deemed worthy of future consideration, could it be added to the Bill, either now or later?

David Jamieson: My hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and for Bassetlaw have raised an important point about the parking regulations under the schedule. We need to examine that carefully rather than make a knee-jerk reaction. Some important issues were raised and I will ensure that they are considered.
 The hon. Member for Christchurch raised the issue of a box junction not being properly marked. The defence would of course be—and this would apply to any traffic offence—that the box was not properly marked. However, if moving camera images are used in connection with the offence, they will show whether the box was properly marked. Therefore, if it were not, the defence would be strong, and I am sure that the adjudicator would throw out such a case and possibly even offer compensation. 
 The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the Government had any particular signs in mind. We do not at the moment, although just as I was thinking that, my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw came up with an example of what we could add to the list. Part 10 gives us the flexibility to include any new signs or even variations to signs in the future.

John Mann: Do I correctly interpret that to mean that the Department would consider a coherent case put to the Minister by Nottinghamshire county council?

David Jamieson: We would certainly consider that possibility and think about whether the sign could be included. However, enforcing the signs using cameras could cause problems, because we would have to define who was getting access to premises that may be a considerable distance down a road, and who was going all the way through. This is certainly one of the issues that concern local authorities. Using rat runs may not be a congestion issue, but it is very much a road safety issue on side roads, especially for children who are travelling to school and for elderly people crossing the road. People trying to get to work and driving at great speed down roads that were not intended for heavy traffic or fast vehicles can cause a major problem.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Schedule 7 agreed to.

Anne Begg: I shall now suspend the sitting for a quick meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee.
 Sitting suspended. 
 On resuming—

David Jamieson: I beg to move,
That— 
 That the Resolution of the Committee of 26th January be amended, by inserting at the end of paragraph (1) 'except on Tuesday 10th February, when it shall meet at 2.30 pm'.
 The Committee has made good progress, which is testimony to the working of hon. Members and the usual channels, which have operated well. The Government were available this evening and on Tuesday morning, if appropriate, for consideration of the Bill. However, to help you, Miss Begg, and the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who has a number of new clauses at the end of the Bill, we are happy to adjust when the Committee will sit. Instead of sitting at the usual time on Tuesday morning, we will sit in the afternoon. I hope that that will help both to achieve proper scrutiny and to accommodate the individual needs of the Chair and members of the Committee.

Christopher Chope: I welcome the Minister's remarks. As he said, the usual channels have worked well and we have made good progress in giving the Bill the scrutiny that it deserves. I expect that we shall be able to finish our deliberations on Tuesday and I will be surprised if we do not. Those people who expect to monitor our progress next Thursday will be able have a day out instead. That is my expectation. When we finish on Tuesday, we shall be able to say that we have as a Committee performed our task diligently. That shows that it was sensible to allow three weeks in the first instance, to see how things would go. We now have the extra flexibility that we would not have enjoyed if we had started one week later.

Brian White: As I have a number of new clauses and would not have been available on Tuesday morning, I thank the Programming Sub-Committee for accommodating my wishes. I look forward to the debate on Tuesday afternoon.

John Thurso: The usual channels have been most efficacious on this occasion. The extra time is most welcome, and I am sure that we shall complete our deliberations expeditiously at the end of Tuesday.

John Redwood: I should also like to thank the Minister for being so accommodating.

David Jamieson: There is an outbreak of consensus on the Committee. I am glad that we have accommodated my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East. Without wanting to give away any secrets in the privacy of this meeting—I am not being ironic—I will not let on that the hon. Member for Christchurch has for the first time voted with his party for a programme motion.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Resolved, 
That— 
 That the Resolution of the Committee of 26th January be amended, by inserting at the end of paragraph (1) 'except on Tuesday 10th February, when it shall meet at 2.30 pm'.
 Clause 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 8 - Civil enforcement areas and

Question proposed, That this schedule be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.

Christopher Chope: An issue arises out of our earlier discussion of representations by the Metropolitan Police Service. It said that civil enforcement penalties were significantly higher than fixed penalties. That is somewhat anomalous, and I wonder whether the Minister could comment.

David Jamieson: I noticed that anomaly. It seems that some penalties are higher under the civil enforcement regime. However, it is difficult to address the issue in the Bill, and we may have to revisit it in other legislation.

Christopher Chope: We could surely address it by amending the Bill to say that civil enforcement penalties cannot be greater than fixed penalties. The Minister might not like that, but it would be one way of ensuring a consistent approach. Perhaps the Minister could think about that.

David Jamieson: No amendment has been tabled to that effect, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to table one later in consideration of the Bill, I dare say that we could debate it and test what could be done.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Schedule 8 agreed to.

Clause 71 - Power to require authority to

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 142, in
page 42, line 3, leave out 'require' and insert 'invite'.
 This is a simple but far-reaching amendment. It would enable local authorities to be invited to set up a civil enforcement penalty regime, but it would not enable the Government to require them so to do. A lot of concern has been expressed about the requirement that local authorities should set up such a regime, even if they do not want to. About 80 local authorities have already engaged in the process, but why should they be compelled to do so? The Select Committee on Transport and the Local Government Association are concerned about that. 
 The regulatory impact assessment deals with the balance of costs and benefits, stating: 
''Given that civil enforcement is designed to be self-financing it is considered that the benefits of compelling authorities to take on such powers outweigh the costs.
 However, the burden of civil enforcement may not be self-financing for some local authorities, particularly those in more rural areas, which may incur disproportionate costs if they take over a civil enforcement job from the police. The regulatory impact assessment continues: 
''If cost is an issue in any particular case it will be possible for an authority to raise the matter in making its representations to the national authority in response to a formal indication that the issue of a Notice is being contemplated.''
 Obviously, they will be able to raise the issue, but if we do not amend the clause, the Government will still be able to compel them to set up a civil enforcement regime. 
 I believe in local authorities and localism, which is in vogue at the moment, and I wonder whether the Government could accept the amendment in the spirit of localism.

David Jamieson: The point of the clause is to give the national authority a reserve power to compel authorities to apply for parking enforcement powers, whereas the amendment would allow the national authority to ''invite'' them to do so.
 Effective parking enforcement is essential to reduce congestion and ensure road safety but, for good reason, enforcement of such offences is not a high priority for the police. As the hon. Member for Christchurch said, more than 80 authorities outside London have already acquired decriminalised parking enforcement powers under the Road Traffic Act 1991. They must all be thanking him for bringing in that Act—we find so many references to it. Credit where it is due, I say. 
 The 1991 Act, which was introduced against a background of the police giving a lower priority to enforcement, required all London authorities to take on decriminalised parking enforcement powers by July 1994. However, we are concerned that some authorities are slow in facing up to reality. They should seriously be considering the introduction of civil parking enforcement powers in their areas. That is why we feel 
 that the reserve power to compel authorities to apply for parking enforcement powers is needed. We recognise that authorities require sufficient time to prepare to take on parking enforcement powers—about 18 months—and we would certainly ensure that the commencement date for the enforcement powers in any notice to apply is realistic. 
 Subsections (3) and (5) provide for a dialogue between the national authority and the local authority before any notice is issued. I agree, to a point, with the hon. Gentleman about localism: where possible, we should allow local authorities the greatest freedom to act on behalf of the people whom they represent, but localism does not mean opting out of responsibilities. Any future Government may want to look into a situation in which an authority is not facing up to its responsibilities. I invite the Committee to reject the amendment.

Christopher Chope: I hear what the Minister says but, as I understand it, local authorities currently work very closely with the police—there is a lot of discussion, and there is partnership. The Government must believe in partnership between local authorities and the police, because they have set up all sorts of safety partnerships. If they intervene and say that they will force local authorities to take on that responsibility when they do not wish to do so, it may be damaging and burdensome to those authorities. In Dorset, there was quite a long lead-in period and long discussion with the police, which enabled some authorities to take over civil enforcement more quickly than others. It all depends on local circumstances. If the Government really believe that the changes are in the interests of local authorities, it is rather sad that they do not trust them.

John Thurso: I have listened to the debate with great interest, and I find the hon. Gentleman very persuasive. Is not local democracy at the heart of his argument? If we are to elect people locally to represent a local community, should not they be free to take decisions without imposition from the central authority?

Christopher Chope: Absolutely. If the police say, ''We can't carry on enforcing parking in a particular locality,'' the people in that locality should have the option of saying to their local council, ''Well, let's take that responsibility on ourselves. Let's keep it local.'' That is the burden of the amendment, and I would like to put it to a vote.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Clause 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 72 - Civil enforcement orders

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 192, in
page 42, line 40, leave out from 'authority' to end of line 43.

Anne Begg: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 193, in
page 42, line 43, at end insert— 
 '(2A) No person shall be employed as a civil enforcement officer unless he is the holder of a current valid driving licence and has been the subject of a check with the Criminal Records Bureau.'.

Christopher Chope: We had a discussion earlier about the qualifications of traffic officers. If civil enforcement officers are to be given this wide range of responsibilities they should be properly qualified. The Government were sympathetic to the point that was made in the earlier debate about the need for Criminal Record Bureau checks, and the fact that traffic officers should have a current driving licence and, therefore, a knowledge and understanding of the highway code and the reality of being a driver. Obviously, the Highways Agency is under direct Government control, and the Government have already given assurances that traffic officers will have to have those qualifications in order to become traffic officers under the provisions of part 1.
 The situation in relation to local government is rather different. We know from the record that there is an enormous amount of injustice at the moment in the conduct of local authority civil enforcement officers, as they will be called under this regime. Much of the need for appeals could be removed if they were better qualified in the first place. That is what amendment No. 193 is designed to ensure. Later in the Bill, we talk about double parking and parking a particular distance from the pavement. If one parks further than that distance, one will be subject to a civil penalty. It is important that the people who are looking at that should be able to exercise discretion and common sense, based on the fact that they have some experience of driving. 
 I am lucky enough to drive a car with power steering, but many of my elderly constituents do not. The measure is not designed to discriminate particularly against elderly women, but it could have that impact in practice unless the enforcement is carried out by people who have some common sense and knowledge of exactly how difficult it can be for somebody who is perhaps slightly infirm to get their car parallel to the kerb, when there are many vehicles there. I am concerned that we shall have a civil enforcement regime in which the people doing the enforcement are not sufficiently au fait with the realities of life for motorists. 
 The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston mentioned box junctions. He and I, as members of the Institute of Advanced Motorists, know the rules, but we also need to have regard to the realities. We are much more likely to get others to do that if they have a driving licence, and if we know that they are responsible people who are not known to the CRB as a result of having been in difficulties with the law. 
 Amendment No. 192 is a probing amendment to test why the Government believe that civil enforcement officers should not be directly employed by and accountable to local authorities.

David Jamieson: Under the clause, existing parking attendants become civil enforcement officers. Currently, they are employed either directly by authorities or by companies that undertake enforcement for them. Authorities can decide for themselves which option to choose, taking into account best value considerations as legislation requires. I was interested that the hon. Member for Christchurch spoke mainly about the second amendment rather than the lead one. I think I know why. The provisions that he is trying to overturn are those that he introduced in 1991.

Christopher Chope: The Under-Secretary talks about the lead amendment as though I had chosen it as the lead amendment. He knows that the order in which amendments are debated is an issue for the Chair rather than for the person who proposes an amendment.

David Jamieson: Indeed it is, Miss Begg. However, it is usual that the lead amendment is spoken to first. I merely noted that the hon. Gentleman gave less emphasis to it. As he will know, under the Road Traffic Act 1991, authorities were compelled to subject enforcement activities to competitive tendering under the legislation then in force, so I find it rather curious that we have his amendment before us. However, it has been useful to have the debate.
 Amendment No. 193 would require a civil enforcement officer to be someone who is the 
''holder of a current valid driving licence and has been the subject of a check with the Criminal Records Bureau''.
 I see no reason why an officer should necessarily have a driving licence. Such people would not have to drive in connection with the work—they could cycle, walk or take public transport—so they would not necessarily need driving licences. However, I think that it is right that they be properly trained and that they have the skills to carry out the job. The hon. Gentleman will know that circular 1/95 on guidance on parking enforcement outside London, which sprang out of his own legislation, contains clear guidance about the training of parking attendants. We shall ensure that the guidance that relates to the Bill covers the role of enforcement officers including their training. We will echo the provisions of paragraph 7.6 of circular 1/95 that local authorities should ensure that enforcement officers, including supervisors and managers, should have the training necessary to provide accurate, fair and consistent enforcement. The point is well made and important.

John Thurso: We have created a category of people who have responsibility for exercising wide powers, all of which are to do with such things as box junctions, road traffic signs and the behaviour of vehicles. The easiest way to ensure that somebody knows what those mean is to require them to pass a test—at least the written part of the driving test. I respectfully suggest to the Minister that somebody who has not taken the test is unaware of most of that.

David Jamieson: I agree with that up to a point. Obviously, somebody who has taken the driving test will be more familiar with general matters on the road, although I admit to the Committee that although I can barely swim, I have taught many people to swim, including my children, who are all excellent swimmers. One does not necessarily have to be able to do something to be familiar with it and to know what needs to be done.
 The scope of the clause is quite limited and proper training will be given. The provision that officers should have a driving licence is unnecessary. However, the Bill will enable civil enforcement officers to report moving contraventions, and we expect that most such contraventions will be detected using cameras. We certainly do not envisage officers going out in vehicles to detect moving contraventions. They will not have powers to stop vehicles: in fact, clause 74(4) specifically prohibits the conferral of power to stop vehicles. 
 The civil enforcement officers' role will not be akin to that of the Highways Agency traffic officers: they will not be able to stop vehicles and would not normally come into contact with the occupants of vehicles. Nevertheless, civil enforcement officers are in a position of trust, so we should, of course, expect them to act honestly and fairly. Local authorities must make sure of that when they issue penalty charge notices or report vehicles for moving contraventions. 
 There has been an outbreak of consensus on the matter of the CRB check, and I should like to give it further thought. I do not think that there is a need to put that in the Bill—we have not already done so for traffic officers, as that that will be in the regulations. Civil enforcement officers are in a position of trust—not to the same extent as a traffic officer and certainly not to the same extent as a police officer—so we need people of the highest quality to do the work. They generally do a good job, although some in some areas they do not appear to do so. The public need proper reassurance about what sort of people we employ to do the work. I hope that the hon. Member for Christchurch accepts my points, and I guarantee that I shall reconsider the issue. Although I do not think that it needs to go in to the Bill, we could certainly consider whether the matter is necessary for the guidance.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the Minister. He obviously understands that there is an issue here. I hope that when he considers what course he should take, he will look at the most recent report of the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service. That report sets out vivid examples of wholly unreasonable behaviour on the part of parking attendants. In the latest newsletter, the figures for April to September in Lambeth show that 1,292 appeals were received, of which only 285 were refused. In other words, more than 1,000 appeals have been allowed or withdrawn: that is an incredibly high percentage success rate for appellants, incredibly burdensome for the adjudication service and absolutely oppressive for the people who have had to go through the process to get justice. Furthermore, for every person who appeals, I suspect that 10 or 20 others hang their heads in shame and say, ''I just can't be bothered with it, I'll just pay up, but I
 hate the whole system.'' Anything that the Minister could do to restore more respect for the system would be welcome. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 9 - Civil enforcement: setting the level of charges

David Jamieson: I beg to move amendment No. 71, in
schedule 9, page 79, line 5, after 'to' insert 
 'contraventions on or adjacent to'.

Anne Begg: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 72 to 74.

David Jamieson: These are small, tidying-up amendments and do not affect any part of the policy.
 Amendments made: No. 72, in 
schedule 9, page 79, line 6, leave out 'other roads' and insert '— 
 (i) parking places provided or authorised by such authorities, or 
 (ii) contraventions on or adjacent to roads other than GLA roads,'.
 No. 73, in 
schedule 9, page 80, line 10, after 'to' insert 
 'contraventions on or adjacent to'.
 No. 74, in 
schedule 9, page 80, line 12, leave out 'other roads' and insert '— 
 (i) parking places provided or authorised by such authorities, or 
 (ii) contraventions on or adjacent to roads other than GLA roads.'.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
 Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 74 - Notification of penalty charge

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: I have a question about subsection (4), which states:
''The regulations may not confer power to stop vehicles.''
 That is an important provision, but does the Minister believe that it is compatible with the approach taken in the London Local Authorities Bill, which gives local authority officers the power to stop vehicles for the purpose of testing their exhaust emissions? I believe that the power to stop vehicles on the highway should be exercised only by the police. If the Minister agrees, which would explain subsection (4), will he explain whether the Government have a different attitude to the other Bill or whether they will amend it?

David Jamieson: It is not for us to discuss the London Local Authorities Bill, although for someone to test an exhaust, they must be able to stop the vehicle, just as the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency needs to stop vehicles to carry out weight and other tests. That cannot be done on the run.
 As we have said before, many of the offences that we are discussing will be enforced by cameras, and it is inappropriate for civil enforcement officers to have the 
 power to stop vehicles for parking offences, yellow box offences and no-right-turn offences. It is a matter of finding measures that are appropriate to the circumstances. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 75 - Immobilisation of vehicle where

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 53, in
clause 75, page 45, line 2, leave out '15 minutes have' and insert '1 hour has'.

Anne Begg: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 54, in
clause 75, page 45, line 5, leave out '15 minutes have' and insert '1 hour has'.
 No. 81, in 
clause 75, page 45, line 18, at end insert— 
 '(5A) Nothing in those regulations shall exempt a traffic officer, a local traffic authority or any person employed by or acting for them from liability to the owner of a vehicle where the affixation of an immobilisation device has caused any damage thereto.'.

Christopher Chope: Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 would change the time that must expire before wheel-clamping can take place from a 15-minute to a 60-minute minimum. Amendment No. 81 would make it clear that the person who did the wheel-clamping was responsible for any damage caused to the vehicle as a result.
 I tabled the amendments in the knowledge that they differ from the guidance that the previous Government issued in 1995. I was not a Member of the House then but, as I understand it, in the decriminalised parking enforcement guidance, 15 minutes was regarded as the minimum period before wheel-clamping could take place. Since then, however, enforcement by some local authorities has become rather unreasonable. If a vehicle is not obstructing the highway—that is already excluded—but is parked by a meter and has overstayed its time, why should it be clamped so quickly, with the consequence of a substantial penalty and, perhaps, substantial delay for its owner or user? 
 There was probably no parliamentary debate on the original insertion of 15 minutes in the 1995 guidance. However, this debate gives us a chance to think that through and to consider whether and how it can be made compatible with the rules relating to the removal of vehicles. Increasingly, vehicles are removed when they are parked in parking spaces in breach of the regulations and they are certainly taken away to the pound in breach of the guidance that was set out. If the Minister, in the context of the debate on clause 75, has any views on that, I would welcome them. If a vehicle is taken away from the location where it was parked, it has been immobilised as far as the owner is concerned. That quite often takes place now when the vehicle has been in the location for less than 15 minutes, let alone an hour.

David Wilshire: There is one point that could usefully be added to my hon. Friend's persuasive argument just in case the Minister has not yet been 100 per cent. persuaded. The Bill is about traffic management and obstructions. Fortunately, I have never been wheel-clamped, but I have watched the process. If there is anything that clutters up the road for a while, it is people turning up in a large van, getting out equipment and generally shuffling about to put wheel clamps on. It would be helpful if the Minister could say whether research is being done as to how long it normally takes before someone whose car has received an overstay ticket comes back, realises what he has done and moves on. I should have thought that whereas some people could not care less and are prepared to stay there all day because they are content to flout the law, others quite often overstay by a few minutes when the period of 15 minutes is clearly indicated. In the past, it has been realised that one can overstay by five or 10 minutes here or there. I simply wonder how many people do not come back until more than an hour later.
 If the Minister wants to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, he needs to be able to give us the information that I have requested. Otherwise, he would do everyone a favour by stopping these vehicles parking, as they usually do, right in the middle of a carriageway while someone's car is clamped when it is parked next to the kerb.

David Jamieson: I am becoming fascinated by how the hon. Member for Christchurch is distancing himself from his past. He will recall that this 15-minute grace period was provided in section 70 of the Road Traffic Act 1991. He told us this morning there was detailed scrutiny of that Act in Committee, and I am sure that there was. I was not a Member of the House at the time, so I do not know, but he may even have defended this.
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

David Jamieson: The clamping of vehicles has incurred a penalty charge and is used as an additional sanction by some authorities to deter unlawful parking. It is especially useful in areas like London where demand for parking is particularly high. I can tell the hon. Member for Christchurch that in this Government's fight-back for liberal Britain, his amendment would reduce the effectiveness of the enforcement, thereby reducing the turnover of parking spaces, which in turn would reduce people's access to parking, especially where demand for spaces is highest.
 I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about the effect of the amendment, which would favour those motorists who abuse parking restrictions and penalise the honest motorist, such as people who want to drop off an elderly aunt or a vulnerable disabled relative, as the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said. Those people may not find parking spaces because someone is hogging the space, to the detriment of other road users. 
 The hon. Member for Christchurch asked if we knew how long people stay after their parking time has expired; I am not aware of any research into that. However, if there were lax enforcement, we could be sure that the spaces would be filled all day, every day, by those who park to the detriment of honest, decent people who want to park legally and in consideration of other road users.

David Wilshire: As time goes by, I get slower at spotting some of the absurdities that come flowing across the Committee Room. I wonder if I understood the Minister correctly? Did he say that if we were to accept the amendments, more people would be stuck in spaces that would therefore not be available to other people? If that is so, could the Minister tell me how clamping a car creates a parking space?

David Jamieson: It creates a serious disincentive to leaving a car in a space for a long period. It does not have the effect at that particular moment, but the thought of being clamped is a heavy disincentive to people who might overstay their time in a parking bay.

David Wilshire: I thought the Minister might say that. As I said, I have not been clamped but I know people who have. In London, if someone overstays their time by 20 minutes and arrives to find their car clamped, they have to go across the city, stand in a queue for a while, talk nicely to somebody and pay their money. After they have twiddled their thumbs for a bit, someone turns up to remove the clamp. How does that create additional spaces?

David Jamieson: I stand by what I said a moment ago: it creates a disincentive to people to overstay. Generally, few people overstay because of the fear of being clamped. If we allowed people to stay as long as they wanted, all the spaces would be filled by the inconsiderate people who grab the spaces first, to the detriment of a large number of others, especially vulnerable people or those who cannot walk very far. Such people may want to park in a certain space but they are blocked by fit and able people who cannot be bothered to move their car at the appropriate time.
 In respect of amendment No. 81, the enforcement staff responsible for clamping already have a duty of care to vehicle owners. Regulations under clause 75 will not seek to undermine or limit that duty. We expect enforcement staff to take great care to ensure that a vehicle is not damaged as a consequence of being immobilised. If the owner of a vehicle believes that that duty has not been observed, the matter can be considered by the courts under existing legislation. I hope that in the light of that clarification, the hon. Gentleman will ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Christopher Chope: I will seek leave to withdraw the amendment at the end of this debate, but I want to put it on the record that local authorities have behaved unreasonably in many cases although standards have been laid down with the best of intentions. The Minister has not addressed my concern, and I can understand why, as it is not necessarily within the context of the clause. I am anxious about people having their vehicles removed when they have been parked for only a short period, but I accept that on a
 strict interpretation of the clause, that is probably out of scope. There is a real problem there.
 The Minister will know from having read about some of the cases that have been the subject of adjudication in London that the London local authorities thought for a time that it was perfectly reasonable for there to be a period of four hours between payment of the penalty and release of the clamp. It needed an adjudicator to decide that that was thoroughly unreasonable. That is an example of the way in which some local authorities have been behaving in a high-handed and totally counter-productive fashion. The consequence was that when someone returned to their car a few minutes after the time had expired, the car, instead of being moved, was on the highway occupying a parking space for up to five more hours. I hear what the Minister says, but I hope that he will look at that problem. At the moment, clamping does not seem to be the subject of any control at all. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 76 - Representations and appeals

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: The Minister said in response to a question about the cost of appeals that normally there were no costs. Subsection (5) states:
''The regulations may include provision authorising an adjudicator to make an order for the payment of costs and expenses by a party to an appeal in such circumstances as may be specified.''
 Obviously, that is something that the Committee has no control over because it will be subject to regulations. But this is an opportunity to ask the Minister what he has in mind in relation to regulations, including such provisions.

David Jamieson: This clause meets some of the hon. Gentleman's earlier requests. In certain circumstances, the adjudicator could make an order for the payment of costs and expenses where he thought it appropriate.

Christopher Chope: Is the Minister therefore saying that he will bring forward regulations to that effect? If so, can he assure us that those regulations will be even-handed between the parties to an adjudication? Will they cover the situation in which, as happens frequently in London, the respondent to the appeal, the local authority, does not contest it and does not even put in an appearance? Will the provision cover that situation, perhaps with an automatic award of costs against the local authority?

John Mann: Does the definition of adjudication incorporate magistrates' courts?

David Jamieson: The clause seeks to replicate what is in the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. If the hon. Gentleman is not familiar with those, it may be helpful if I read them out.

Christopher Chope: I am about as familiar with them as the Minister is.

David Jamieson: Indeed, so I shall read them out. Regulation 12 says:
''The adjudicator shall not normally make an order awarding costs and expenses, but may, subject to paragraph (2), make such an order—(a) against a party (including an appellant who has withdrawn his appeal or a local authority that has consented to an appeal being allowed) if he is of the opinion that the party has acted frivolously or vexatiously or that his conduct in making, pursuing or resisting an appeal was wholly unreasonable; or (b) against the local authority, where he considers that the disputed decision was wholly unreasonable.''
 I hope that that is helpful. There is no automatic award of costs; the adjudicator will decide.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for putting that on the record.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 77 - Adjudicators

David Jamieson: I beg to move amendment No. 67, in
page 46, line 32, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 34.
 Amendment No. 67 removes subsection 3(b), which would require the Lord Chancellor to make regulations to set out the procedure to be followed by authorities when appointing adjudicators. The Government recently announced their intention to create a new independent Judicial Appointments Commission, which will take over the Lord Chancellor's responsibility for the judicial appointments process. It is no longer appropriate for the Lord Chancellor to make such regulations; procedures for those responsibilities will be decided by the Judicial Appointments Commission. Events have overtaken us so we want to remove that part of the Bill.

David Wilshire: Events have not quite overtaken us. They are coming up rapidly behind us, but there is still a Lord Chancellor. Until such time as the position has been done away with and a judicial arrangement is in place, the status quo remains. If the Bill becomes an Act, and provides for a judicial quango to have responsibilities, what will happen if that quango does not exist?

David Jamieson: I listened to what the hon. Gentleman said, and perhaps I should have said more. The requirement for the Lord Chancellor's consent on appointments, which will also transfer to the commission, will be sufficient guarantee of the probity of the appointment of civil enforcement adjudicators, because that consent will depend on the normal requirements of fairness, transparency and openness. It is not necessary to prescribe the detailed procedures in regulations. I understand that matters are in hand so the amendment will be effective.

David Wilshire: The Minister said that it would not matter if the amendment were made or not because one could fall back on reasonableness, or whatever word he used. If we agree to the Government amendment and the Lord Chancellor remains and a quango is not established, will the Government be able
 to do what they like rather than having to refer matters to the Lord Chancellor? Is that what we are being asked to agree to? The only check and balance would be that someone behaved reasonably. The Government could do whatever they liked because there would be no sanctions in the Bill.

John Mann: May I repeat my previous question about the definition of ''adjudicator''? Could that be defined as meaning magistrates court?

David Jamieson: The simple answer is no. The magistrates court will deliberate over the issues in the case of police penalty charges, but the adjudicator will do so in the case that we are discussing. If the status quo outlined by the hon. Member for Spelthorne remains, the adjudicator would be appointed with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor.

David Wilshire: This gets better and better. The Minister is now telling us that, having removed a reference to the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chancellor would still be responsible. I hate excessively long legislation, and I wonder why the provision was included in the first place if the Lord Chancellor would act in any case.

David Jamieson: Oh dear. The hon. Gentleman has rumbled us. What we are saying is that we will be covered in both circumstances with the amendment. What was in the Bill was perhaps a case of belt and braces.
 Amendment agreed to, 
 Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 78 - Enforcement of penalty charges

Question proposed, that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: The clause gives the Minister the opportunity to bring us up to date on the Government's thinking about the mass of unenforced motoring and parking fines and about how the clause will work if it provides for a penalty to be enforced simply by a further penalty? The Home Secretary has said that under no circumstances can anyone who defiantly refuses to pay outstanding debts for motoring and other offences be sent to prison. How will justice be done, therefore, by those law-abiding people who fall foul of civil enforcement provisions but who know jolly well that many other people see them as just another part of the process to ignore and continue to act with impunity. Irrespective of what is set down in the legislation, enforcement often never occurs, particularly when the cost is greater than the amount recovered.
 The Minister will know that the RAC Foundation has written to us, drawing attention to the fact that a speed camera can catch someone going a few miles an hour over the limit but that that does not deter the estimated 1.5 million in what it calls the motoring underclass. How will the clause tackle the problem of that lawless motoring underclass?

David Wilshire: The Minister said that I had rumbled him and he has spurred me on to look even more
 carefully at the Bill. Why are there no Government amendments to the clause? Subsection (1) states:
''The Lord Chancellor may make regulations''.
 However, subsection (3) states that the 
''Lord Chancellor may by order make provision'',
 and subsection (4) adds: 
''Any such order may make such incidental and supplementary provision . . . as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate''.
 Where are the Government amendments removing the references to the Lord Chancellor? The Government were so keen to remove them before, but they are perfectly content to leave them now.

David Jamieson: The simple answer is that the Lord Chancellor is still referred to in clause 77, and that is why he is still referred to in this clause.
 The hon. Member for Christchurch made a good point about the important issue of enforcing fines, and the matter has exercised the Home Secretary. The hon. Gentleman asked what the clause would do about the ''motoring underclass'', but the issue is a bit beyond its scope, and it will do nothing about it. However, as he knows, we are doing many things, such as introducing continuous registration and clamping down on car tax dodgers, to crack down on the underclass of people who often commit other offences, such as not taxing and insuring their cars and speeding with impunity, probably because the log book has been lost and there is no proper record. There is therefore a need to improve records, which we are doing iteratively over time. Each action that we take squeezes out more and more people who believe that they can get away with it. 
 The hon. Gentleman asked about the system of enforcement, which takes us back to the 1991 Act. Bailiffs can be used, where appropriate, to collect unpaid penalty charges. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 78 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 79 - Certified bailiffs

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Mann: Will clause 79(5) apply in all circumstances to bailiffs pursuing all forms of car parking fine?

David Wilshire: The Lord Chancellor also appears in this clause. I did note the Minister's comment that he was included in clause 78 because he was in clause 77. Surely, however, the justification for removing him from part of clause 77 should also apply to the remainder of that clause? How can a non-existent person be required to do so many different things? The answer that I was given before, that he is left somewhere in clause 77, in no way deals with the question: what will happen if the permission is required from someone who longer exists?

David Jamieson: I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw that what he describes is no longer in the Bill. It might help to clarify the matter for
 members of the Committee if I provide a note on the role of the Lord Chancellor. It might be interesting for me to read, too. I am sure that our legal minds have all this sorted out, and I will have them apply themselves to the matter so that the hon. Member for Spelthorne can lie easily in his bed at night.

David Wilshire: Members of the Committee might be relieved that the Lord Chancellor does not figure in this clause.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 10 agreed to.

Clause 81 - Prohibition of double parking etc.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: This has turned out to be quite a contentious part of the Bill, as the Minister will probably accept. At the moment, obstructing the highway is an offence that the police can prosecute. There is also the question whether it should be the subject of civil enforcement. The clause, however, identifies a specific version of obstruction—double parking—that includes the rigid requirement that no part of the vehicle must be further than 50 cm from the edge of the carriageway. Many of us do not understand the figure of 50 cm. It means nothing, because we have been brought up under the old and, I believe, much better regime. We do not understand metrification. By including a specific figure of 50 cm in the Bill, the Minister is encouraging unreasonable officialdom to start getting out rulers and taking measurements. If the provision said something like ''within a reasonable distance of the edge of the carriageway'', we could understand that better.
 Many local authorities already paint the extent of the parking areas on the road, and some authorities seek to put tickets on cars even when those cars stick out only minutely over the line. The provision would introduce another rigid system into what we all understand to be the area covered by the law of obstruction—thou shalt not obstruct the highway. Can the Minister explain why double parking, in particular, should be seized on for special treatment as a form of obstruction, when there are so many other forms that obstruction can take? 
 Although exceptions are set out in the clause, is the Minister confident that they are sufficient to ensure that a reasonable approach is taken by enforcement authorities? If one examines the record of enforcement authorities, particularly in London, it makes one nervous about what will happen in practice. 
 The clause is contentious, so I hope that the Minister can address these points, and also indicate what scale of enforcement he envisages. Does he think that double parking is such a big problem that hundreds of thousands of penalty notices a year will be issued, or will it be only a few thousand or a few hundred a year? That would give us an idea of the 
 extent to which the Minister considers this to be a problem that should be addressed with specificity, rather than under the general provisions of the law relating to the obstruction of the highway.

John Redwood: I, too, have misgivings, as I am not sure that the drafting in the Bill will achieve what the Minister sensibly wants to achieve. Under the provisions, it would be possible for someone who wanted to park in a place where there was insufficient room to park properly, to park on the angle, so that the front wheel of the vehicle was close to the kerb, to meet the Bill's requirement, but a large part of the rear of the vehicle would be hanging out, because they had approached the space on the diagonal rather than parallel to the kerb. The current drafting would allow that to happen and could, bizarrely, make parking worse. People who were not very good at parking or who were trying to park in places that were not big enough, might decide that by hook or by crook they were going to get one part of the vehicle, probably the front wheel, very close to the kerb, and the rest of the vehicle might therefore cause a greater obstruction as a result. We have all tried to manoeuvre our cars into very tight spaces in which one can get close enough to the kerb not to create an obstacle to traffic on the carriageway, but perhaps not as close to the kerb as the provision would require.
 I agree with my hon. Friend that there are still many drivers and other road users who think in imperial rather than metric measurements. The great advantage of the foot as an imperial measurement, for example, is that a decent-sized man in a reasonable pair of shoes has a foot that measures a foot, and so he does not need to take special equipment with him to work out how far away he is from the kerb. I have no idea what part of my anatomy is 50 cm; speculation on that in the Committee would not be healthy, and might be a diversion that would take us out of order. 
 The same would apply to the yard, which was a natural measurement related to the span of the arm, but there is no similar naturalness to the metric measurements. The Minister should provide a translation to those of us geared to more natural and British measurements rather than these rather strange foreign imports, which bear no relationship to any part of the anatomy that I can remember.

David Wilshire: I shall leave those points behind and not get involved, as the results could be quite unfortunate.
 When I first read about the measure, I thought that either it was 1 April or somebody had gone barking mad. I did not think that it was serious. If the intention is to stop double parking, why in heaven's name does the Bill not say that one cannot double park? Even a mean intelligence, like mine, understands that; I cannot begin to understand the reference to 50 cm. In any event, could the Minister tell us why 50 cm was chosen? Was research done: have people been out there, measuring and testing to come up with a figure, or was it clutched out of the air? If it was clutched out of the air, that reinforces my view. What research has been commissioned and why 50 cm? What is wrong 
 with 45 cm or 55 cm? There must have been a reason for the decision.

Claire Ward: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that there is a danger to other road users if vehicles are not parked close to the kerb? That danger might be that people have to walk further from the pavement to get around cars, or that other vehicles coming by will have to squeeze past. Given that not every vehicle is of the same width and that commercial vehicles in particular tend to be much larger, that could cause significant problems for many other road users.

David Wilshire: I accept that, but it is an offence to obstruct the highway. If one parks badly, the highway is obstructed. We do not need this measure. It is being sold as the cure to the double-parking curse. I accept what the hon. Lady says. A single vehicle sticking out is bad enough, but something that is double parked is even worse; I accept that entirely. However, I still have to come back to the question: why 50 cm and how was that figure arrived at? I take the Minister to be a reasonable person; are we really going to argue whether it is 49.5 cm or 50 cm? Is he prepared to put it in Hansard that he hopes that those who enforce the measure will use a bit of common sense and that 51 cm, whatever that might be, will not be used? It is an important point. Does the Minister want us to support the measure absolutely, mindlessly and thoughtlessly, or with some concern and reasonableness? It is fair to ask him to give some guidance for when people come to read this debate.
 The Minister may be tempted to say, ''Ah, well, but'', but I am one of those people who likes to say to myself, ''Where is the loophole?'' To try to help him, I think that there is a loophole. He might care to consider the reference to 
''no part of the vehicle''
 in line 13. No part of the vehicle, or no part of the vehicle that is permanently attached at that point? We will get some clever clogs who bend over their aerials; it might seem frivolous, but there are people in this country who delight in finding loopholes in law. [Hon. Members: ''You!''] I run training courses, and if anyone would like to join me in the Strangers Bar afterwards I will show them how. It might sound frivolous and flippant on a Thursday afternoon, but I ask the Minister to reflect genuinely on whether that wording is adequate. It is only a matter of picking up a loophole if one is felt to exist. Otherwise, the people who will benefit from the wording will be the lawyers rather than the local authorities. 
 Earlier, I made a point about clamping. The Minister might wonder whether it is worth considering that; I think that it is. When someone comes along with their clamping truck, because there is nowhere else to park, they double park while they clamp somebody. I have seen it happen. Clause 81(5)(a)(iii) refers to 
''removing an obstruction to traffic''.
 If the clamped vehicle is to be taken to the pound and a vehicle with a crane on it comes along, double parks and removes the vehicle to make a space, that is covered by the provision. However, if a vehicle comes 
 along to carry out a clamping, it is not removing an obstruction but making the obstruction harder to move. I would not have thought that a clamping vehicle that double parked for a few moments to clamp a vehicle is covered as an exception in any way. Will the Minister reflect on that as well?

David Jamieson: This has been quite a bouncy little debate, although it has been longer than I thought it would be. The hon. Member for Christchurch asked about exceptions to the full list, but I cannot think of any amendments that might be introduced now. He also asked about the scale of enforcement, which would depend on the size of the problem in an area. It is my understanding that the issue is hardly a problem in many rural areas, but is quite a serious problem in parts of London, although not all, which is why the provisions need to be enforced.
 There was great delight on the Opposition Benches about the 50 cm, which, for the benefit of the non-metric right hon. Member for Wokingham, is approximately 19.5 in. He can now work out whether there is any part of his body to which that equates. There has to be a measurement for the law to be enforced. If the Bill just said, ''Well, you can't park too far away'', it would be useless. We would then rightly be criticised for introducing a vacuous clause that did not specify the distance. The hon. Member for Spelthorne asked where we got the 50 cm. I can tell him: the 50 cm comes from—

David Wilshire: Brussels.

David Jamieson: No, it does not come from Brussels, nor does it come from the Government. The clause is based on section 5 of the London Local Authorities Act 1995, which was introduced when I think the hon. Gentleman's party was in power. If he wants to know why we have taken our decision, he needs to have a chat with the Ministers who were responsible for transport then, because they introduced the 50 cm.

Claire Ward: Does my hon. Friend agree that drivers are expected to know, understand and be used to certain distances, especially if they follow ''The Highway Code''? Having to work out distances is nothing new, even if it has to be done in metric rather than imperial measurements.

David Jamieson: We have to treat such matters reasonably. We have talked a lot about reasonableness today, but if a vehicle is parked a long way from the kerb, it will clearly cause an obstruction. The intention is not necessarily to enforce the provisions of the clause if a vehicle is 51 cm away. Rather, the clause is designed to give local authorities the powers to keep the flow of traffic moving and to remove the obstruction caused by people who double park their vehicles and who are a complete nuisance in some cities, particularly London.
 The hon. Member for Spelthorne asked about someone bending over an aerial. For all that courts take any notice of such cases, I would have thought that 50 cm or more would be outside the limits of the normal construction of the vehicle. That is how I see those provisions being interpreted.

David Wilshire: It sounds as though the Minister agrees that an amendment on Report would be quite useful.

David Jamieson: I do not see why an amendment would be useful. I think I said that the provisions would be interpreted to mean those parts of the vehicle that would be part of its normal construction. I am sure the courts will deal effectively with cases of people doing strange and wonderful things.

David Wilshire: I suspect that the Minister might have just made matters worse. By saying what he hopes the courts would take the provisions to mean, he is inviting the courts to say, ''Well, if the Minister had really meant it, it would have been in the Act or he would have produced an amendment''. Now that the Minister has gone that far down the track, I ask him to talk to his lawyers and see whether what I suggest needs to be done.

David Jamieson: That was a good try by the hon. Gentleman. I was just saying that if a court considered these issues and saw that a person was trying to get round the law, the law would consider, where appropriate, any comments that were made here as well as what happened at the roadside. This is a useful clause. It deals with an issue that is a problem in parts of our cities, and I hope that it will have the Committee's support.

David Wilshire: May I invite the Minister to comment on my point about clamping vehicles?

David Jamieson: I am sorry for overlooking that particular point. Yes, if a vehicle is being taken away and there is a brief obstruction caused by lifting and removing the vehicle, it would be usual for the clamping vehicle to park sensibly and carefully so that it was not itself causing an obstruction. When clamping vehicles remove vehicles from the road, it seems to happen with great rapidity; where I live in London they seem to work at remarkable speed.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 82 - Prohibition of parking at dropped footways

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 84, in
page 50, line 30, before 'occupier', insert 'lawful'.
 The amendment would effectively prevent squatters being able to park outside houses they had occupied unlawfully. At the moment there is an exception for the occupier of the premises, and this amendment would limit that exception to the lawful occupier of the premises.

David Jamieson: The term ''occupier'' appears in much existing legislation. In anticipation of the hon. Gentleman's interest in this, we researched how many times the word ''occupier'' appeared in various pieces of legislation. We gave up counting at 7,000. Nowhere does it refer to the ''lawful occupier''. I am sure that this Government did not pass all that legislation, as it stretches back many years. It is unnecessary to make this distinction between ''lawful occupier'' and ''occupier''.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the Minister, and congratulate him and his officials on the diligence with which they are examining the amendments we have tabled.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: Clause 82 is worded very similarly to clause 81. I do not want to repeat the arguments, but it is worth making the point that both clauses spell out in a lot of detail what is involved and have given the Committee the opportunity to examine the precise wording.
 Under much of this Bill we are talking about giving the Government regulation-making powers, rather than looking at the specifics. As we have the chance to look at the specifics now, will the Minister address the issue of rescue and breakdown vehicles? They are not specifically covered under either clause 81 or clause 82, and I thought it would be more appropriate to raise the issue under clause 82. 
 The exception in clause 82(3) does not apply to a shared driveway. Surely, though, where there is a shared driveway, the issue should be whether the occupiers of premises which share a driveway consent both or severally to the occupation of parking on the dropped footway outside. It would be unfortunate if the person with whom one was sharing a driveway was blocking one's own entrance. However, in some circumstances, neighbours will be perfectly agreeable to one or the other occupying the road space outside that shared driveway. 
 The other point that I wish to put to the Minister concerns the differential between the exceptions under subsection (5). The fourth exception is when vehicles are parked for no longer than 20 minutes, whereas the fifth exception covers vehicles parked for no longer than is necessary. Surely, what is most important is that the vehicle should not be parked for longer than is necessary rather than for a specific time. Would the Minister consider including a provision that parking should be for no longer than is necessary in subsection (5) rather than the prescriptive limit of no more than 20 minutes?

David Jamieson: On the latter point, the clause draws a distinction between deliveries and collection of goods, which generally takes a matter of a few minutes—10 minutes or so—and then puts a limit on it of about 20 minutes. Clearly, it would be different for works involving demolition or excavation or for lorries being loaded with goods, which could sometimes take considerably longer.
 Emergency vehicles are obviously covered, but the difference for rescue services vehicles is that they would not be parked as such—a rescue vehicle operated by the RAC or the AA or one of the other breakdown services would generally be in attendance with the vehicle. In such cases, it would be with the agreement of the occupier.

Christopher Chope: Under subsection (4), how is the position of a fire tender, an ambulance or a police car different from that of a breakdown vehicle?

David Jamieson: The clause specifically covers the fire brigade, the ambulance service and the police—and rightly so. There probably would not be a great deal of difference, but rescue services vehicles will not be parked but will have stopped and be giving aid to someone—and they will not be there for long. The driver of a rescue vehicle could also seek the permission of the occupier.
 The question of shared drives is a difficult one, and there are many in all parts of the country. The reason for the exception is that there could be all sorts of confusion about who had given permission, or whether both people had given permission. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 83 to 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 86 - Consequential amendments and repeals

David Jamieson: I beg to move amendment No. 68, in
page 52, line 32, leave out 
 'and 12 provide for amendments and repeals' 
 and insert 'provides for amendments'.

Anne Begg: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Government amendments Nos. 79, 80 and 69. 
 Government new clause 12—Repeals.

David Jamieson: The amendments and the new clause are intended to tidy amendment and repeals provisions in the Bill. I assure the Committee that they involve no change in policy.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 86, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 11 - Civil enforcement: consequential amendments

David Jamieson: I beg to move amendment No. 75, in
page 84, line 13, after 'who' insert 
 'in the case of a vehicle found in an area that is a civil enforcement area for parking contraventions'.

Anne Begg: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 76 to 78.

David Jamieson: These are minor drafting changes that are a consequence of the amendments to which we have just agreed. They add clarity to the Bill's provisions about representations and appeals.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 76, in 
page 84, line 14, leave out 'a' and insert 'the'.
 No. 77, in 
page 84, line 16, leave out 'a' and insert 'the'.
 No. 78, in 
page 85, line 4, leave out subsection (5) and insert— 
 '( ) The functions of adjudicators under this section shall be discharged by the persons appointed as adjudicators for the purposes 
of Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 (civil enforcement of road traffic contraventions) and any arrangements made for the discharge of their functions under that Part also have effect for the purposes of this section.'.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
 Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 12 - Civil enforcement: appeals

Amendments made: No. 79, in 
page 87, line 8, leave out 'and 2'.
 No. 80, in 
page 87, line 14, at end insert— 
 Other Repeals 
 Short title and chapter 
 Extent of repeal 
 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c.53) 
 In Schedule 1, in column 2 of the entry relating to section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 the words ''by constable''. 
 In Part 1 of Schedule 2, in column 2 of the entry relating to section 37 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 the words ''by constable regulating traffic'', and in column 2 of the entry relating to section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 the words ''by constable''. 
 In Schedule 3, in column 2 of the entry relating to section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 the words ''by constable in uniform''. 
 London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (c.iii) 
 Section 12.'. 
 —[Mr. Jamieson.]
 Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to. 
 Clauses 87 and 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 89 - Application of surplus income

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 55, in
page 54, line 25, leave out 'or undesirable'.

Anne Begg: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 56, in 
page 54, leave out lines 27 to 30.
 No. 57, in 
page 54, leave out lines 33 to 35.
 No. 58, in 
page 54, leave out lines 36 and 37.
 No. 59, in 
page 55, leave out lines 1 to 3.

Christopher Chope: This is a very important clause because until now there has always been a requirement on local authorities to invest their surplus income from on-street parking in off-street parking. The rationale of the Bill is to try to reduce traffic congestion and obstruction of the highway. It must surely almost go without saying that it is better if vehicles can be parked off the highway in off-street parking. However, a number of local authorities have decided, for reasons best known to themselves, that it is best not to provide
 any new, additional, off-street parking. This clause would allow them to spend their money on other things. Amendment No. 55 would limit that to situations in which local authorities believe that provision of further off-street parking accommodation in their areas is unnecessary.

Brian White: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the Tory Government, when they got rid of Milton Keynes development corporation and handed the roads over to the control of Buckinghamshire county council, insisted that parking remained on-street, so that the income could not go to the local Labour district council?

Christopher Chope: I may hold myself to be an expert on most things, but I am certainly not an expert on that. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's predecessor made representations about that at the time. If he did, I am sure that they would have been dealt with extremely sympathetically. However, the hon. Gentleman's point does not have much to do with my concerns about this clause.

Andrew Miller: It was a good one.

Christopher Chope: As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston says, it was certainly a good one, whatever that means. With that contribution, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East has justified his membership of this Committee.
 If off-street parking is ''unnecessary'', it is difficult to argue with the proposal that no more money should be put into providing it, but if it is ''undesirable'', and that means that it is thought to be politically undesirable but necessary, the Bill, which deals with congestion and provides tremendous powers of intervention, should not be allowed to let local authorities off the hook or relax a regime that should put more pressure on off-street parking. 
 The other amendments would iteratively remove the additional parts of subsection (2), thereby limiting the purposes for which the income can be used. Sub-paragraph (v) states: 
''in the case of such local authorities as may be prescribed,''
 that income can be used for 
''any other purposes for which the authority may lawfully incur expenditure'',
 so it could be spent on the mayor's annual reception; it could be frittered away on anything one cares to speculate on, although we need not spend a lot of time speculating. Enabling local authorities to raise revenue from on-street parking and then fritter it away is not what we should be doing. 
 It is interesting that support for the line that I have taken on this matter has come from the Royal National Institute of the Blind, among others. The RNIB does not support the provision to allow certain designated high-performing authorities to spend the surplus from parking fines as they please. In many areas, spending on the pedestrian environment is inadequate, and this clause is likely to make the situation even worse. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East is nodding in agreement. 
 We know from our earlier debates that many failing local authorities are not even spending the money that 
 the Government have given them, which, although not earmarked, is intended under the standard spending provisions to be spent on renewing and repairing the highways. The Minister will accept that hardly a local authority in the country can claim that its highways and pavements are up to scratch at the moment. If that is so, why should we consider giving a local authority the power to spend the valuable income from parking places on things that are unrelated to the transport infrastructure or to reducing congestion? The argument is strong so, although I expect that the Minister will resist one or two of the amendments, it would be unreasonable for him to resist all those that are designed to restrict the power of local authorities to fritter away the money.

David Wilshire: Just so that there is no opportunity for anybody to say that I am not consistent, I must point out that on every Standing Committee on which I have ever served I have come across clauses that I hate beyond all others. Amendment No. 59 relates to one of them.
 If it is held to be sensible to say that there should be restrictions on how money is spent—my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch wants to make the restrictions even tighter than the Government suggest, by deleting almost all the other provisions on which the money can be spent—why in heaven's name is there a clause that says that if it takes our fancy, we will let the money be spent on anything? 
 I assume that ''as may be prescribed'' means that the Secretary of State can let whoever he likes do whatever they want. That is not democratic government; that is just allowing a tinpot dictator to run amok and do what he likes, despite the fact that the Government have admitted that spending ought to be constrained. I know the Minister will tell me that the provision is ''just in case'' and will not be used, and that authorities will be reasonable. However, it is there and can be used and somebody will have the opportunity to say, ''I do not care about this Act of Parliament. I am going to use my wonderful dictatorial powers to let somebody do whatever they want without reference to anybody.''

David Jamieson: Amendments Nos. 55 to 59 seek not only to remove the new freedoms but to impose a more restrictive regime on the use of surplus parking income than applies now. That is proposed by an Opposition who last year criticised us, during debates on what became the Local Government Act 2003, for not trusting local authorities or councils or providing them with sufficient freedoms. The hon. Member for Spelthorne did not quite spell out who the tinpot dictators are. Are they local councillors—perhaps some of his own local councillors? They will be the ones who have to decide how the money is spent. Hansard will have recorded the hon. Gentleman's comments, and I am sure that we can make them available to those who might like to hear that local councillors are deemed to be tinpot dictators. If he wishes to sink further into the mud, I shall happily assist him.

David Wilshire: I will drop myself right in it by being utterly consistent again. I was not referring to councillors who might be tinpot. The person doing the prescribing is the Secretary of State. It was him I described as a potential tinpot dictator. I shall not make matters worse for myself. If the Minister had studied my form over the years, he would know that I have been here for 17 years. He will also know when his party came to power—yet I appear to have been in opposition for the whole of that time.

David Jamieson: I am not going to give a discourse on the political system in this place, but there is a lot of difference between a Secretary of State in a democracy such as ours and somebody who is defined as a dictator. However, I shall not detain the Committee any longer on that matter.
 In our White Paper, ''Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services'', we said that local authorities would be allowed to spend surplus funds from parking fines on local environmental improvements. We also said that the highest performing authorities would be given complete freedom to decide how to spend income from parking fines. Very few authorities have a significant surplus in their parking accounts, but some, especially in central London, have a large surplus. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Christchurch has had discussions with his colleagues who run Westminster council, but I understand that its surplus runs to tens of millions of pounds a year. Is he suggesting that his colleagues on Westminster council—tinpot dictators or whatever he wants to call them—should now be limited as to how they spend that money? Perhaps we should insist that they spend it on speed humps; my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw would have something to say about that. 
 Let us look again at the list of things that authorities can spend the surplus on: making good deficits in the general fund; the provision and maintenance of parking; the provision of public passenger transport services; highway improvements and highway maintenance in London authorities only. The hon. Gentleman asks where those items come from; I can tell him that they pre-date the hon. Member for Spelthorne, as they come from section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. They are not new measures; they have been around a long time.

David Wilshire: If I had been here in 1984, I would still have been in opposition.

David Jamieson: I shall have to contemplate that point carefully.
 The Bill would provide that there could be spending on local environmental improvements. The hon. Member for Christchurch mentioned the Royal National Institute of the Blind, and some of the surplus funds could be used to enhance the pedestrian environment. In terms of environmental improvement that would be very advantageous in many cities.

Christopher Chope: What the RNIB has in mind is not as fancy as improving the environment; it is as basic as having paving stones straightened and made level.

David Jamieson: Here we are, and we have given authorities the powers to use the funds for such a purpose when there is a surplus. If the hon. Gentleman wants to have a chat to some of his colleagues in the central London authorities, especially Westminster, he might be able to bear down on them to use some of the funds for the purpose that he has advocated.
 We have had a short but interesting discussion. I ask the Committee to resist the amendments.

Christopher Chope: I have heard what the Minister has said. There was a lot of bluster, but he did not address the concerns that were expressed, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, in relation to amendment No. 59 which, of all the amendments, seeks to try to find common ground. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 59, in 
page 55, leave out lines 1 to 3.—[Mr. Chope.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Tony McNulty: What did the Liberals think?
 Amendment made: No. 69, in 
page 55, line 32, leave out subsection (5).—[Mr. Jamieson.]
 Clause 89, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 90 - Wales

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: I have a short point that has been prompted by the remark of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty). This is an important clause relating to Wales, and it is a matter of regret that no Liberal Democrat is here to address the issue.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 90 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 92 - Commencement transitionals and savings

David Jamieson: I beg to move amendment No. 70, in
page 56, line 22, at end insert— 
 '( ) For the purposes of Part 6 (civil enforcement of road traffic contraventions), and related repeals, different days may be appointed for different areas.'.
 The amendment adds a sentence to subsection (2) to enable the provisions of part 6 relating to civil enforcement to be commenced not only at different times, but at different times for different areas. The amendment will enable civil enforcement regulations to be brought into force at different times in London than in the rest of England and Wales. The first priority will be to make regulations for outside London so that authorities can be given powers only currently available to London authorities. The phasing that we envisage under the Bill is the simultaneous making of parking and bus-lane regulations outside London, of moving vehicle contravention regulations for outside London and of parking and bus-lane moving vehicle contraventions and lorry ban regulations for London.

Christopher Chope: Could the Minister give us a little more information about the time scale envisaged for the making of the regulations?

David Jamieson: The regulations will be made according to the schedules I gave the hon. Gentleman some time ago when we had an informal meeting. It showed that they would be made up until the summer of 2005.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 92, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 93 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 10 - Powers to stop or direct traffic

'(1) This section confers the following powers on a traffic officer— 
 (a) a power, when the traffic officer is engaged in the regulation of traffic in a road, to direct a person driving or propelling a vehicle— 
 (i) to stop the vehicle, or 
 (ii) to make it proceed in, or keep to, a particular line of traffic; 
 (b) a power, for the purposes of a traffic survey of any description which is being carried out on or in the vicinity of a road, to direct a person driving or propelling a vehicle— 
 (i) to stop the vehicle, or 
 (ii) to make it proceed in, or keep to, a particular line of traffic, or 
 (iii) to proceed to a particular point on or near the road on which the vehicle is being driven or propelled; 
 (subject to the restriction in section 35(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c.52)); 
 (c) a power, when the traffic officer is engaged in the regulation of vehicular traffic in a road, to direct persons on foot (or such persons and other traffic) to stop; 
 (d) a power to direct a person driving a mechanically propelled vehicle, or riding a cycle, on a road to stop the vehicle or cycle. 
 (2) In section 35 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c.52) (drivers to comply with traffic directions)— 
 (a) in subsection (1)— 
 (i) after ''a constable'' there is inserted ''or traffic officer''; 
 (ii) after ''duty'' there is inserted ''or the traffic officer (as the case may be)''; 
 (b) in subsection (2)(b) after ''constable'' there is inserted ''or traffic officer''. 
 (3) In section 37 of that Act (directions to pedestrians)— 
 (a) after ''uniform'' there is inserted ''or traffic officer''; 
 (b) after ''duty'' there is inserted ''or the traffic officer (as the case may be)''. 
 (4) In section 163 of that Act (power of police to stop vehicles), in subsections (1) and (2) after ''uniform'' there is inserted ''or a traffic officer''. 
 (5) In Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c.53) (prosecution and punishment of offences under the Traffic Acts), in column 5 of the entry relating to section 35 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c.52) after ''constable'' there is inserted '', traffic officer''.'.—[Mr. McNulty.]
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 11 - Inspections

'After section 73E of the 1991 Act (as inserted by section 54 above) there is inserted— 
 ''Inspections 
 73F Guidance about street authority inspections 
 (1) The Secretary of State may issue or approve guidance to street authorities about any matter relating to the exercise by them of any power to carry out inspections of street works (including inspections following their completion). 
 (2) In exercising their powers to carry out such inspections a street authority shall have regard to any guidance issued or approved under this section. 
 (3) In this section any reference to inspections includes the carrying out of investigatory works.''.'.—[Mr. McNulty.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Tony McNulty: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 The new clause simply puts on a statutory basis what is currently voluntary guidance, as I alluded to when we discussed clause 54 some time ago. This is at the request not only of many of the senior utility bodies, but of local authorities. It was simply an omission or an oversight in the 1991 Act that the guidance was not put on a statutory footing like other guidance that covers the same areas. It is as simple as that and I commend it to the Committee. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 12 - Repeals

'Schedule 12 contains repeals.'.—[Mr. McNulty.]
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 2 - Works to motorways and trunk roads

'The Highways Agency shall carry out any works to motorways and trunk roads entailing the closure or narrowing of lanes after 8 pm and before 6 am or at weekends.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

John Redwood: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 It gives me pleasure to move the new clause. The Bill is intended to improve traffic flows on our roads and particularly on the main routes, which carry the bulk of traffic. It is common ground in the Committee that one big obstacle to the safe and reasonable progress of traffic is the entering into roads of the authorities to carry out streetworks. The Highways Agency and its contractors often impose substantial impediments to progress on our motorways and trunk roads. Over recent years, efforts have been made under Governments of both persuasions to introduce better practice, but it would be a good idea for the Committee briefly to consider the issue and to make explicit provision to limit the agency's scope to cause congestion and chaos during a busy working day.

Andrew Miller: I declare a vested interest, because I will be on the motorway considerably later than 8 o'clock tonight. Has the right hon. Gentleman costed his amendment? If so, will he share that information with the Committee?

John Redwood: The amendment has two implications for costs. First, there is the cost to the taxpayer, which will go up to a modest extent because there will be more night working. However, there will be an enormous saving to the business community and the wider community because congestion will be reduced during the business day. It is most important that the Government and Parliament consider both aspects. We are here to serve the public, and the businesses of our country generate the wealth that pays the taxes that pay for public services. Under the present system, highway works are undertaken during busy days, so there is a modest saving to the taxpayer in terms of the tax money that has to be disbursed. However, there is also a big increase in the other costs to taxpayers.

Andrew Miller: The amendment would clearly involve additional contracting costs because of the time of day involved. Given the definition used by the hon. Member for Christchurch, would that not amount to a stealth tax?

John Redwood: On the contrary—I am saying that it could provide a stealth rebate to businesses, which would no longer have to meet the congestion costs that the Government and Labour Members are usually very willing to calculate when they argue for a green agenda. In the nicest possible way, I am a very green Conservative and I believe that we need green policies to take account of pollution, congestion and chaos. That sometimes involves an immediate price, but Labour Members should remember that they often urge us to pay a much higher price than I am suggesting to achieve those aims.

Brian White: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Redwood: If I can finish dealing with one hon. Gentleman, I will of course take an intervention from another. It is a great pleasure to see Labour Members' interest and enthusiasm sparked after a fairly dull sitting.
 Although more night working might increase the cost of highway works somewhat, because people often want higher wages to work over night, the other point to remember is that there will be no similar increase in the cost of plant utilisation. Indeed, it might be cheaper to rent plant over night and for it to go to a building site during the day to ensure maximum utilisation. There could, therefore, be a saving. 
 A saving will undoubtedly be made in terms of the work that will need to be done to deal with the pressures that are created by traffic flows and with the safety issues that arise when a congested motorway is shared by busy business users trying to do their daily jobs and those who are trying to enter into highways works. It is therefore quite wrong for Labour Members to suggest that the cost will all go one way. Some costs will be reduced.

Brian White: On Second Reading, I drew attention to the plight of my constituents whose Christmas peace was destroyed by the noise from Newport Pagnell service station. Would the proposal not cause problems in areas in which people live adjacent to trunk roads and motorways? How does the hon. Gentleman propose to deal with the disruption to the lives of those people?

John Redwood: As the new clause makes clear, weekend working need not be restricted to the hours of darkness. I would hope that, wherever possible, the Highways Agency would put in place noise suppression measures in order to take care of that issue. Fortunately, most stretches of trunk road and motorway in our country do not go past or through residential areas. However, the hon. Gentleman has made a good point; there are some short sections of motorway and trunk road in urban areas—I have some in my constituency—and I would, of course, want noise suppression to play an important part in any highway works.
 The Minister must recognise, however, that there is already a lot of night working on our highway network; presumably the Government addressed the noise problem when they allowed agencies to undertake it. It is not a showstopper—there are ways of dealing with noise that would allow the new clause to make sense and to guarantee in all cases the observance of the good practice of not digging up 
 major roads at the time when they are most needed by the public who have paid for them. 
 How often is my suggested good practice used? I am sure that the Minister, being an honest man, will tell us that it already takes place. I know to my cost, having tried to use the motorway and trunk road network in the evenings and late at night when we have a proper Parliament and are detained here for a reasonable length of time, or when I am going about the country making informative speeches to people in connection with my parliamentary or political duties, that such practice is observed. I plan my route carefully and then discover that the principal trunk route or motorway that I wished to use, as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston has found, has been either completely closed or disrupted, because the Highways Agency has seen the point of working at night. 
 It would also be good if the Highways Agency, wherever possible, decided that it did not have to shut the whole motorway or trunk road in order to carry out night works, as often seems to be the case at the moment, but merely closed one or two lanes and allowed traffic to continue to flow. There might be a trade-off with the cost issue that we were discussing earlier. An advantage of night working that made it cheaper could be that the whole motorway could be closed for four or five hours at a time when not many people want to use it, and the job could be done faster and more easily than with a big chunk of the motorway open during the busy working day. 
 My idea is simple, and it builds on current good practice. The cost argument against it is poor because of the compensating reductions both to the Government and more especially to private sector users of the highway. The noise question is important, and we have already had to confront it in relation to a lot of night working on our highway. The answer is noise suppression and better technology for the kind of roadworks that we wish to do. It makes sense to speed up roadworks by maximising the use that can be made of the equipment at any given time so that, when it is noisy, the period over which the noise is heard by residents in urban areas is reduced. 
 Debate adjourned.—[Gillian Merron.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Six o'clock till Tuesday 10 February at half-past Two o'clock.